Ethics News Science

Scientists ponder how to talk to the faithful about climate change

BOSTON (RNS) After sessions on gravitational waves, nuclear forensics and artificial intelligence, one of the world’s largest general science conferences invited attendees to hear from an Episcopal priest.

The Rev. Fletcher Harper preached on climate change, and how to get a vast segment of the world’s population to pay better attention to what scientists know but many others doubt: that the problem is worsening and portends disaster.

The Rev. Fletcher Harper, an Episcopal priest spoke at a panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual conference on Sunday Feb. 19, 2017. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

The Rev. Fletcher Harper, an Episcopal priest who spoke at a panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference on Feb. 19, 2017. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

“My entreaty for scientists is to be able to speak publicly about why you care,” said Harper, executive director of GreenFaith, an interfaith nonprofit that aims to galvanize religious people to safeguard the environment.

“It’s vital not to soft-pedal the dangers that we face. … A great deal is at stake.”

At a time of the week when many Americans were in church, Harper and the academics on a panel about “leveraging religious support for climate policy” Sunday (Feb. 19) explained why and how scientists should pursue religious people as allies.

Most people are people of faith, said panelist Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist and committed Christian who is considered one of the most effective voices explaining the consequences of global warming to the religious.

Since three-quarters of Americans and an even larger percentage of the global population belong to a religious group, and since religion is how so many understand their world, it’s incumbent upon scientists to describe the sobering and difficult problem of climate change in religious terms, she said.

“For long-term sustained action, we need hope. We need love. We need encouragement. We need that sense of shared community of being in this together. And for many people … faith communities often provide exactly that.”

She called it “connecting our heads to our hearts.”

The panel at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science took place as more scientists consider engaging in public policy debates in response to the election of President Trump, who they fear has little understanding or respect for their work.

Trump has called climate change a hoax and nominated Scott Pruitt, a climate change skeptic, to lead the EPA. And as a candidate, Trump promoted the debunked idea that vaccines are linked to autism.

Trump also credited his election victory in great part to evangelical Christians, 81 percent of whom voted for him, according to exit polls. Evangelicals, several studies have shown, are also more likely than other Americans to doubt climate change.

Hayhoe and Harper offered several ways of framing the science to make it more palatable to the faithful.

Invoke the environment as a gift — the religious response to a gift is gratitude, but also responsibility, said Harper.

Then, he said, talk about the world as “out of balance.”

“That kind of metaphor is most familiar to people who are practitioners of the dharmic traditions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism), but it also resonates very consistently through Muslim teachings and writings and it resonates certainly for Christians and Jews.”

“It also has the advantage of connecting people with their everyday experience,” he added.

“When they realize that it’s 50 degrees at 7 o’clock in the morning in Boston in the middle of February, it’s not hard for people … to agree with the fact that perhaps something is out of balance.”

Also adding to the value of the religious as allies in the climate change debate is their organization, said panelist Matthew Nisbet, a Northeastern University professor who studies communication and public opinion in science policy debates.

“Religion is more than just a belief system; it’s also a community,” he said. “Churches are among our most powerful, most  important engines for civic engagement and public participation.”

(Lauren Markoe is a recipient of the 2016 AAAS Science for Religion Reporters Award, part of an initiative to facilitate communication between religious and scientific communities.)

About the author

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe has been a national reporter for RNS since 2011. Previously she covered government and politics as a daily reporter at the Charlotte Observer and The State (Columbia, S.C.)

139 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • As a christian with a degree in science, I hope these condescending prigs understand that christians are not stupid, and we already understand about climate change. Whether anyone wants to believe that it is true is up to each person. These self important people who think they are so intelligent, which many are not if you ever meet some, need to stop preaching to people.

  • In many of the better educated parts of the world there are few who doubt that our climate is changing; and not, should trends continue, for the better. In many countries the vast majority of Christians are reasonably educated and can understand the evidence; they also tend to accept evolution, deny the flood, laugh at Jonah and his big fish etc.. They regard the bible as a religious tome rather than a history or science textbook.

    I have “baptist” family in the USA. They are not well educated and they believe that no harm will come to the planet because that’s Jesus’s job; so he will protect it until he’s ready to return. They believe that every word in the bible is inspired by their god and dare not consider the possibility that anything the bible says (or, to their interpretation, implies) can possibly be wrong.

    Putting it bluntly, despite your assertion to the contrary, some Christians are stupid, or at least act as though they are stupid. Currently someone who revels in the adoration of the apparently stupid is in a position of considerable power.

    In the medium and long terms the answer is education – that is encouraging the prizing and pursuit of critical thought. Since, wherever that happens, those who promote religion of the baser kinds see their influence wane such an answer is difficult to implement.

    If people are told that science is wonderful (provided it agrees with our preferred religious text) but that irrational belief is superior when they clash we must expect that teaching them to think rationally will reduce their regard for religion (as evinced by international and US internal statistics). This requires those who lead the “faithful” to act, as we say, like turkeys voting for Xmas, Do you think they will do so?

  • People can believe what ever they want. What difference does it really make if someone denies scientific theories? Why are people so concerned whether or not people believe in CC? What is the end result here that makes getting people to believe this so important? Is it to support something coming down the pike so to speak, that will change the way people live? What does CC really ask of us all? People live their lives the best they can, with what they have or can get.

    If I may be frank here, all the NEED to get people to believe CC is starting to feel like a car salesman telling me all the benefits of this snazzy new car they want me to buy, but we are all waiting to see what the punch line is when they take us in the office to tell us what its going to cost us.

    Every person on the Earth has the RIGHT to hold on to their own beliefs, it’s call freedom of choice or the freedom to live ones life as they choose. It does not bother me if people deny Evolution, CC, Origin of Life, and anyone with any lick of scientific education will also fully admit, theory is not necessarily truth, it is the best known explanation science currently has to explain an observation. Evolution could be discredited tomorrow, as can anything else. Science is far from infallible, so their assumption that everyone but them is too stupid to understand CC, is hubris at best.

  • “that christians are not stupid”

    The persistence of creationism tells me that statement needs a qualifier such as “most” or “few”. Depending on one’s view. When we stop requiring to have to discuss the subject in relation to public schools then you can say that without reservations.

  • You fear biblical creationism, Spuddie, you honestly do. And I don’t blame you.
    Times have changed. PhD scientists are uncovering new examples of intelligent design and astonishing bio-engineering, in both animals and humans. The new discoveries just keep on coming, they don’t stop.

    It’s a phalanx of intelligent bio-engineering examples that atheism can’t explain.

    Every single time you allow your godless fingertips (may I say that?) to touch your computer keyboard, you immediately display a series of breath-taking biological inventions and entire systems (and systems OF systems!) that can be explained only in terms of intelligent causation. Like, umm, God.

    This is no attack on you, actually. Whatever your circumstances, the sky is potentially the limit for you, because God Himself created you for big plans (Jer. 29:11). But atheism can’t help you, and macro-evolution is a lie. It’s time to ditch ’em both, Spuds.

  • “What difference does it really make if someone denies scientific theories?”

    Because of the people they vote for:
    Those who support policies which are counterproductive.

    People who attack funding of scientific research and inquiry on the subject

    People who attack science education in favor of political or religious nonsense.

    “Every person on the Earth has the RIGHT to hold on to their own beliefs”

    When it comes to science, that is a steaming load of bullshit. Not every belief has merit in a scientific sense, can be supported, or would be considered rational to accept. To make it worse is to deny scientific efforts and research is to engage in willful ignorance or outright dishonesty.

    BTW your use of the word THEORY here is one of the most ignorant or dishonest part of your whole anti rational spiel. In the scientific use of the term, theory means a well established framework for interrupting research. It has the equivalent of asking something a scientific “law”. A scientific theory is as close to a “truth” as evidence allows.

    What you are really telling us is you have no problem with institutionalized dishonesty because you don’t value rational thought.

  • I fear the damage dishonest cretins who claim biblical creationism do to public education and rational discourse. Their numbers and stupidity damages us all.

    You have no credible evidence for intelligent design. Nothing anyone in the relevant fields of study would have to accept. You have dishonest amateurs talking about fields they have no credible expertise in.

    The scientific community ignores creationism because it is genuinely stupid.

    Creationists are liars by nature. You have to lie about your faith to support creationism. It is not even good religion. It undermines belief and encourages dishonest support for belief.

    Don’t even bother citing creationist sites. They are not sources the scientific community has to take seriously, neither do I.

    But your little rant demonstrated the true purpose of creationism bullshit. It is to browbeat people into accepting your sectarian protestant belief. (The overwhelming majority of Christians and their sects reject creationism)

  • Actually at this point it’s science saying, “it’s too late to prevent it, let’s at least try to mitigate the effects”.

  • What? Moi? Me cite a dirty nasty wormy creationist website on you? Oh no, never never, Spuddie. None a’ dem malodorous Creation websites for you, I agree.
    I will avoid them all, for this one post.

    But surely you know by now, that the recent explosion of PhD scientific discoveries that display biological intelligent design and engineering, have already gone way past the “creationist” sites. I don’t even need to go to creationist sites, especially since you demand that I not refer to them.

    Here’s an excellent biological example for you. This is a little ditty that I wrote back in 2013, under a pen name. (And yes I took the close-up photo.) Please notice that I do not cite ANY creationist websites at all. Not even once.
    Your own front yard is sufficient to kill evolutionism and atheism. It’s time for you to dial up God already.

    http://cjonline.com/blog/contra-mundum/2013-09-25/does-god-exist-ask-cicada

  • Well you certainly can’t use peer reviewed journal articles accepted in the field of biology. Nor cite to the consensus of the scientific community on all fields related to the subject. In fact all you got are religious minded engineers and mathematics types who recycle arguments that were old hat in the 19th century.

    You cite an op ed in a Topeka paper as proof? Am I supposed to be impressed or laugh myself silly. .

  • So, this what’s-his-name from GreenFaith, Fletcher Harper, prophet-like, is bent on preaching at Christians so they “pay better attention to what SCIENTISTS know … that the (global warming) problem is worsening and portends disaster”?

    Go away, Fletcher.  Fellow believers like me have our own SCIENTISTS to listen to, like these guys:

    (1) “SCIENTISTS who dissent from the (global warming) alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. … many SCIENTISTS have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. … In 1992, (‘then-Sen. Al Gore’) ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting SCIENTISTS, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. … Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled SCIENTISTS who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.” (Richard Lindzen, Wall Street Journal, 12 April 2006)

    (2) “SCIENTISTS might not have human behavior to blame for global warming, according to the president of the World Federation of SCIENTISTS.  Antonio Zichichi … made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. … Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.  He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. … the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.  He said that the IPCC used ‘the method of “forcing” to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations.’  The physicist affirmed that on the basis of actual scientific fact ‘it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes,’ and that it is plausible that ‘man is not to blame.'” (Council for Justice and Peace, 27 April 2007)

    (3) “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 SCIENTISTS have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. … ‘This data and the list of SCIENTISTS make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,’ said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. … Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these SCIENTISTS have gotten little media attention.” (Hudson Institute, Earth Times, 13 September 2007)

  • You demanded that all creationist websites be set aside. I complied with your request, and yet found a current, scientific, (and still unrefuted!) biological example of intelligent design from my own front yard.

    By the way, researcher Hughes of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, did not offer Science Daily any “religious-minded” opinions or arguments. He merely pointed out what he and other scientists have physically observed so far.

  • The actuality of climate change notwithstanding, and the clear biblical mandate regarding proper stewardship of the earth’s resources taken into consideration, the fact that the world is out of balance is a basic premise of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. But it is not the primary role or function of religious leaders to lead a charge on the question of the environment, their responsibility is more properly framed around making spiritual truth known to the people they shepherd. In their varied occupational disciplines and with their particular human insights, people will choose on their own how to respond to the putative crisis of climate change. Fast and furious changes in the technology sector are already beginning to have an impact on people’s behavioral response to the issue. If human adaptability follows its normal pattern there is at least a fair chance of effective mitigation whatever betide. But as one who believes humanity will ultimately wind down rather than wind up with respect to the stewardship of the planet and our fellow creatures who occupy it, all such purely human efforts will finish as a rearguard effort that will ultimately fail, which reinforces the argument that spiritual leaders, at least the Christian ones, should be focusing primarily on the spiritual condition of their flocks, rather than the physical condition of the planet.

  • Again comes pretending sources are more credible than reality permits. You are also relying on double hearsay. Since you quoted a Topeka paper and not actually Science Daily. Quoting a quote from an outside source. Certainly not from authorities in the field of biology. The whole premise of the article was, “I am too lazy to research a subject so I will declare God did it and declare no other explanation can exist”. A great example of both the ignorance and dishonesty of creationists.

    It was hardly the sort of thing which leads to the conclusion that the guiding principle of biology research interpretation built up over a century of accumulated evidence lacks merit. I get it, you don’t understand how scientific theories are formed or the level of proof needed to upend them.

    You have a vested interest in not approaching the subject in good faith. Creationism is most definitely a sign of stupidity people have to wade through when presenting scientific ideas to Christians.

  • Contrary to the way it may be perceived, the Scientific Method (not necessarily scientists) is not arrogant or dogmatic. Nothing is ever proven because a new observation may discredit a theory. In the case of global warming the proof will be in the accuracy of the model predictions over time. As always adjustments will be made as our understanding of complex climate elements and interactions.

  • counterproductive policies like eroding freedom of religion, giving money to the Iranian regime while they pursue nuclear weapons, build long range ballistic rockets & now an aircraft carrier, send the IRS after your opponents, Benghazi debacle, embracing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sending the Att. Gen. after “Climate change deniers”, expanding the size & role of the feds (i.e. obamacare, obamaphones, “czars”, etc.) running up the debt to $20 Trillion and transender bathrooms in the schools, fanning racial flames by embracing a racist organization like BLM, open borders, quantitative easing, etc…….yeah, elections have consequences…

  • Umm, just by way of clarity, I specifically mentioned Science Daily in the essay I wrote (not quoted, but wrote), plus the exact S-D article date, along with Hughes’ explanation.

  • You didn’t link to an actual science daily article. So I don’t have to care here. It’s not even a direct quote. Not even rising to the level of a quote mine. It was an indirect reference. BTW Hughes is not even a biologist. Your appeal to authority is as dishonest as your alleged issues with the validity of a,well established scientific principle.

    An entire article stating, “I am too lazy to look up what entomologists say about cicadas. So I will declare it is god’s design and attack scientific knowledge.”

    By as design goes, cicadas are a poor example. They spend most of their existence as larvae and their adulthood lasts only 2-3 days. They have no mouths and must mate fast before they starve to death. An intelligent designer would have a sick sense of humor.

  • Get back to me when you can quote examples accurately or honestly.

    We didn’t give Iran money. It was theirs and impounded. Iran’s nuclear ambition was largely bluff and we called it without anyone blowing up.

    Republican controlled Congress cut budgets for embassy security. Not one hearing or investigation by said republican Congress members had found wrongdoing on the US side.

    Expanding the role of the government to serve the public a bad thing? As opposed to letting water supplies get poisoned, running states into near bankruptcy and wasting money and resources to discriminate against segments of the population. Enriching political cronies at public expense.

    Climate change deniers are not rational or not honest. Scientific consensus is not a political pov. It is an expert opinion based on evidence.

    You strike me as someone who labors under the delusion religious freedom means Christians have a privilege to treat others obnoxiously and laws don’t apply to them.

    You ignorant, dishonest, malicious cretins have the reins of power now and you still are looking to do nothing and blame predecessors.

  • So far, scientists have not heard any cicadas complaining about their lot in life. They prefer to sing beautiful songs instead, forming massive complex choral arrangements at God’s direction. (And they don’t charge you anything for their concerts !! )

  • Shorter HpO, “I am going to ignore the weight of scientific expertise because I don’t like what it says”

    As with creationists, there is the grand conspiracy theory bandied about that the scientific establishment is suppressing what I want to be true out if politics. It is a delusion borne of not understanding how scientific ideas are adopted and not really being interested in the process (unless it tells me what I want to hear)

    The Hudson Institute is a political think not a body for evaluating scientific communities.

    BTW the lack of a link to your cut and paste quote is telling here. You are clearly using an unreliable or inherently biased source but don’t want people to see that obviously.

    Block quotes without online attribution is what liars use.

  • Of course the reality is the cicadas song is a glorified version of saying, “Hey baby, let’s have sex! Right now! Please?!?”

    And it’s a beautiful,messy, haphazard thing. Not much of an example of design or intelligence.

  • ” What difference does it really make if someone denies scientific theories?”
    Because this theory is backed up by 10’s of thousands of research papers that prove that the theory is sound. 10’s of thousands of scientist have studied this from every conceivable angle and have come to the conclusion that global warming is real, man made and a real danger to humanity. The research that disagrees is almost non-existent by comparison and time and again has been disproven on close examination.
    You can deny this scientific theory but you don’t get to pretend that you disagree on scientific ground because the science is all on the side of the theory. What you are
    left with is this: ” you disagree with the theory because it doesn’t fit your ideology”.

  • I doubt there is anything that science could do, now or ever, to convince you the theory is proven but in the meantime, here’s a list of a few scientist who disagree.
    The US National Academy of Science, the UK’s Royal Society, the World Meteorological Organization, the UK’s Met Office, the European Space Agency, The Japanese Space Agency and every National Academy of Science on the planet have looked at all the research available and all agree “Man Made is real, happening now and a danger to humanity”

  • “Hayhoe and Harper offered several ways of framing the science to make it more palatable to the faithful.

    Invoke the environment as a gift — the religious response to a gift is gratitude, but also responsibility, said Harper.
    “The faithful” always seem to like it best when they are told the truth. The also appreciate it when their spiritual leaders don’t frame the care for the care of the environment as “helping God save God’s Universe!
    These so-called religious leaders need to be a bit more humble, and readily admit what is not yet known: whether and now climate change is caused by humans; how extent the data has been manipulated and corrupted; the extent to which solar activity affects climate fluctuations; (I have yet to see where this has even been studied!) what caused spikes in global temperatures several centuries ago, before the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels ever began; the FACT that none of the climate predictions have really happened, and–compared to what was predicted, only a small percentage of actual temperature changes have actually happened.
    Christians should always respond to God’s gift of the environment with gratitude and responsibility. It’s no sin–and always a good idea to respond with lots of healthy skepticism concerning this fear-based counter-religion of environmental extremism!

  • “SCIENTISTS who dissent from the (global warming) alarmism…. their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges”
    Scientist who disagree have seen their work derided because it is has been found to be wrong, time and time again. Let’s look at one such denier scientist.
    Roy Spencer said that the satellite data didn’t show warming BUT Roy Spencer has been forced to retract and correct almost all of his work on satellite temp. measurements because of glaring calculation mistakes and omissions of data. In the end, after all the correction his work is basically in agreement with those he criticized. Spencer has been forced to retract and correct so many of his scientific papers because of terrible and obvious mistakes ( sometimes 5 or 6 times) that he has lost
    all credibility in the scientific community. Only in denier world is he still a credible source

    As for “industry stooges” Willie Soon wrote dozens of Denier Science papers for years and was a go to expert for all denier. He also denied for year that he received any money from industry.
    Funny thing, investigations and court discovered documents have found that he received millions
    from various “industry sources”(Exxon, etc.) to produce denier science on demand.

  • First of all I never specifically stated my views for or against CC. Please read more carefully. Secondly, I will reiterate that people can believe what ever they want. I do not feel threatened by other people’s beliefs. Scientific beliefs do not amount to much if one is not dealing with the scientific community or need to use scientific methods to justify ones existence. Just like every other field. One can learn about evolution, but when you come down to it, believing in it or not will not change the outcome of a persons life. So my question is, why does it matter if people believe in CC or not.

  • I didn’t find her article condescending at all. As a pastor I find it hard enough to challenge Christians toward a more thoughtful faith that leads to the transformation Paul calls us to by the renewing of the mind.

  • Climate Change (aka “The End Times”) Is In The Bible: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; but my salvation will be forever, and my righteousness will never be dismayed.” ~ Isaiah 51:6
    And,
    “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands;
    they will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment,
    like a robe you will roll them up,
    like a garment they will be changed.
    But you are the same,
    and your years will have no end.” ~ Hebrews 1:10-12
    “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
    They will perish, but you will remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
    but you are the same, and your years have no end.” ~ Psalm 102:25-27
    “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
    But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” ~ Matthew 24:32-39

  • I find the more I understand science, the more I also understand my religion. It is not necessarily so, at least on an individual basis, that more education produces less religion.

  • The thing you seemed to fail mentioning is the danger imposed in denial of solutions that will protect the living from painful and destructive activities wrapped in progress. It is contrary to Christian purposes to ignore the harms our resistance and methods cause others. “Rational arguments” can also rationalize harm done in the name of progress.

  • Except when it comes to life and death of those around us. Then it behooves us to pay attention in order to repent from our self-imposed ignorance, which shields us from responsibility of caring for life on the planet.

  • I don’t doubt that some people cab accommodate both scientific and religious thinking, I know some do. Your experience is not matched by society at large.

  • If by that you mean that evidence-based practice should replace superstition-based behaviour – yeah – sounds good to me.

  • What gets me as a Christian leader is that many evangelicals will deny a catastropic possibility of human self-destructon while touting a period of Tribulation that is supposed to be an inescapable scourching of the earth for those “left behind.” When the book of Revelation declares that one third of the grass on earth will be burned up and the sea will turn to blood and a third of its life perish, how can one say that climate change would not be a part of that scenario?

  • Yes people can, and will, believe whatever they want. If someone denies a scientific theory and only harms themself – sad but their right I suppose.

    In practice of course denying scientific theories (gravity, electricity, evolution, etc.) can, and often does, harm people at every level. In person, as a family, in a business, a club or a church, at the local, regional, national and international levels.

    Morally, your right to behave as though you are stupid ends when it adversely impacts other human beings, whether those alive now or those of future generations.

    You say that scientific theories might be disproved – they wouldn’t qualify as scientific theories if they couldn’t be disproven, Simple truth is that, despite much effort and money being expended, no-one has yet done so in respect of climate change, evolution, etc.. I might live to be 1000 years old, no-one who understands the evidence would put money on it.

  • Climate change as a consequence of God’s behaviour?

    When god exists in people’s minds he tends to accommodate his host’s personality doesn’t he.

  • Bingo! I don’t see them attacking any science on which the Bible is silent. They are superglued to their literal interpretation of the Bible and everything contrary to that is ignored.

  • We are in an Ice Age warming trend exacerbated by excess CO2. Rest assured that within tens of thousands of years we will be (if humans persist) complaining about global cooling.

  • Nobody was ever made safer by reactionary appeals.

    Rational arguments are not rationalization. Denial of scientific evidence is done at ones own risk and the risk of others. It’s telling that the most vehement resistance to climate change science comes from commercial interests.

    “It is contrary to Christian purposes to ignore the harms our resistance and methods cause others”

    It’s a nice sentiment not shared by many people here who identify as Christians. Many use their faith specifically as a pretext to harm others.

  • It’s the body of scientific work that counts. That stands against the politics, ego and contentions that exist in the scientific community. The name, “Big Bang Theory” was coined as scorn and ridicule and there embarrassing fights between the Bible Bangers and the Steady State Theory. Plate Tectonics was ridiculed when it was first proposed. When the evidenced piled up, the controversy ended. Your post is a deflection.

  • Floyd, You really have to check sources again – the Epoch Times is a bit of a give-away that assertions might need to cross-checked. And in this case, generally debunked by Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

    There is a very important reason as far as I am concerned for reflecting bona fide science within a Christian belief system. The religiously unaffiliated are most similar in attitudes to the actual scientific community as to (non) beliefs about evolution/intelligent design being scientifically valid. That is not to say science and religion are exclusionary but rather that beliefs such as creationism or intelligent design turn the Bible into disputable scientific theory. The scientists that I know who are practicing Christians rely only the beginning of John.’ In the beginning was the Word’.

  • Well, you’re right Linda — it is good to double-check sources. Your Snopes article IS an interesting rebuttal to what the Epoch Times reported. Thanks.

    Of course, your Snopes article (by Alan Kasprak) doesn’t eliminate the problematic situation, not at all.

    Looks like the U.S. Congress is now calling for an investigation of what John Bates reported, and the NOAA itself is apparently calling for “independent outside sources” to investigate. What Bates reported, is still a live issue after all.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/20/update-congress-launches-probe-into-noaa-study-that-duped-world-leaders-over-global-warming/

    The more one Googles, the more interesting this Bates story is rapidly becoming. One can write some seemingly good criticisms of Bates’ claims, yet there IS enough reasonable Bates stuff to keep the central question, “Did NOAA deliberately fiddle the climate data to hide the “pause” in global warming in time for the UN’s COP21 Paris talks?” on the science table.
    (Hat tip to James Delingpole and Breitbart on that last sentence.)

  • It’s called cognitive dissonance or compartmentalizing. We all have that tendency. Christian literalists are just better at it.?

  • what do you think about Dane Wiggington’s philosophy/presentation? He has a weekly youtube analysis at geoengineeringwatch

  • Reading through this article, you’d think it’s because what’s-her-name, Katharine Hayhoe, is “a … committed Christian” that she says stuffs like, “For long-term sustained action, we need hope. We need love. We need encouragement. We need that sense of shared community of being in this together. And for many people … faith communities often provide exactly that … connecting our heads to our hearts.”  But no, actually it’s because she’s first and foremost “a climate SCIENTIST” that she thinks she can go around pontificating her climate-change propaganda whenever, wherever and to whomever.   She says so herself elsewhere:

    “We … atmospheric SCIENTISTS … know climate change is real, that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community.” (Katharine Hayhoe, Christian Post, Aug 31, 2013)

    “As a SCIENTIST, I deal with facts every day.  So I know what science can tell us.  Science can tell us that climate is changing.  Science can tell us that for the first time in the history of the planet it’s not a natural cycle, it’s humans. … Climate change is a lot to dig into.  Are the SCIENTISTS disagreeing on it?  No, we agree.” (Katharine Hayhoe, “Putting Faith in Climate Science”, TVO, Jan 20, 2016)

    So, you see, the “SCIENTIST” hat that Katharine Hayhoe puts on as a put-on actually is way more important to her than her so-called “committed Christian” hat, the other put-on.  For it’s that “SCIENTIST” hat that makes her think she can get away with lying to “faith communities” that all “SCIENTISTS … agree” on climate change and, therefore, endorse her climate-change narrative.

    There’s only one problem with that presumption, and it’s a huge one: NOT all “SCIENTISTS … agree” on climate change!  Which now compels me to say: Go away, Katharine.  Fellow believers like me have our own SCIENTISTS to listen to.  You already know them, but just in case, I showed their IDs earlier to what’s-his-name from GreenFaith.

  • It’s rather damning that Christians need to be spoken to in a particular way for them to listen to science’s conclusions. Is there something about Christianity that makes believers more likely to dismiss reality?

  • Honestly, regarding the creationism/intelligent design issue, it looks like Spuddie — and indeed the worn-out Theory Of Evolution itself — could really use a little scientific help from you, further down the thread. 🙂

  • Look, Jim Johnson, it’s Fletcher Harper who preaches, “pay better attention to what SCIENTISTS know … that the (global warming) problem is worsening and portends disaster”. And the rebuttal is, No, Fletcher Harper, not ALL SCIENTISTS. That’s not at all “a deflection” by definition – whether a turning aside or off course, or a departure of an indicator or pointer from the original premises of an argument.

  • Thanks, Mike Vienneau, for the updates on many a “denier scientist”, truly. That said, though, do you support, with verifiable evidence, Fletcher Harper’s claim that 100% ALL “SCIENTISTS know … that the (global warming) problem is worsening and portends disaster”? You can’t, can you? … I rest my case.

  • No, Spuddie, (1) the “Shorter HpO” is, “I am going to ignore the weight of scientific expertise because I don’t (agree with) what it says (on account of the weight of the opposition as-scientific expertise)”. Try that. (2) Thanks for reason for dismissing The Hudson Institute. (3) You’ve got the quotations, so type a line in Google with both start and end quotation marks, then see which article’s URL pops up. Sorry about that but comments webmasters frown upon posting URLs.

  • My guess would lean to the majority opinion of climate scientists who look at a whole host of variables/changes to come up with assertions and control for new emerging variables – eg. changes in salinity and impact on currents etc. It is as far as I can determine, a very broad look involving a lot of variables considered. Actually the Snopes article rebuts your highlighted comment but most importantly NOAA is not the only source of data including out of country. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise.

    Also Lamar Smith ran on a platform of denying climate change so no small surprise that Congress is investigating. But you will need to carefully look at who they call to give evidence.

  • Wait a minute! you want to claim that denier scientist were libeled for being on the fossil fuel payroll. Then I prove that Willie Soon was doing it for the money.
    Then you change the subject. Well here’s some more stories you’re not going to like.
    “Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding”
    http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/12/14/109629/
    and
    “Nine Out of Ten Top Climate Deniers Linked to ExxonMobil”
    http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

    As for denier scientist having their work derided. Roy Spencer’s work is derided
    because his science is terrible. His work is such a joke that undergraduates
    race to read his latest research so they can be the first to find and publish all the mistakes.

    and my case has barely begun……

  • As for me, it goes like this: Just as you won’t be putting all your eggs in John Bates’ basket, I won’t be putting all my eggs in Alan Kasprek’s basket.

    I think Congress and the NOAA have the right idea: let’s just do an official investigation to sort it all out. Let’s put some “outside independent sources” on this issue, let’s see if the “Big NOAA Question” is a “Yes” or a “No.”

    I realize this is a separate topic, but I also wish Congress would call Dr. Noelle Metting to give her testimony about what the Obama Gang did to her this past December, merely for giving a House committee some science information that didn’t fit Obama’s official global warming sales-pitch.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/report-obama-administration-axed-scientist-truthful/

    Most Americans are kewl with the science enterprise, but ONLY if everybody’s honest and there’s an open flow of science info. No NOAA fiddles, no IPCC fudgings, no dissenter-scientist firings.

  • Balloon science is not based on belief. Science is based on observation and the collection of evidence / data.
    When the collected evidence, measurements, confirmational experiments and observations overwhelmingly and repeatedly agree then we have facts based on science. If you can’t disprove a scientific fact scientifically(using science) then you are disagreeing based on belief.
    One can learn that diseases are caused by bacteria and disagree but
    if your belief causes you to refuse to take antibiotics you may change the outcome of your life by shortening it.
    “why does it matter if people believe in CC or not.”
    Because if you are wrong based on nothing more than your unsupported belief then your inaction / obstruction, of those who believe the science, could lead to a catastrophe for them, yourself and your children. Hey! just think, you could be the one who is the cause of the all end time ecological disasters described in the Bible.

  • Way off-topic now. On-topic interest only in the false claim that there’s 100% consensus among scientists. So not interested for now anything else you’re discussing. I do follow James Corbett and Global Research Centre on the subject. Prove those 2 wrong and you’ll get my full attention. Though not here to stay on-topic.

  • I’m saying equating Climate Change with “The End Times” is wrong. One is a real, observable, measurable and predictable event, the other is a misinterpretation of a coded story based upon evidence-free, superstitious belief.

    Depending upon what is meant by “bible believers” such people may, or may not, be able to accept climate change. Christianity must be the ultimate pick-and-mix religion.

    As to hating god(s) – I hate them with exactly the same degree of hatred as I feel toward unicorns (particularly those pesky little green and pink ones with the raspberry flavoured posterial emissions), the fairies at the bottom of my garden and the sandman.

  • “Likewise, I also try to understand both scientific and religious thinking.”

    And so do I, but I don’t make the mistake of thinking that there is a way of putting the two together.

    Scientific thinking and religious thinking are terminally incompatible since they exist for different reasons, use different techniques and have to satisfy different criteria. Didn’t someone write – “choose you this day whom you will serve”.

    Reason or religion is your choice, as Martin Luther said in various formats (and presumably in German) “You cannot be a Christian unless you pluck out the eye of reason” ML may not have been right over everything but that is spot on the money.

  • The weight of opposition expertise is not there. You have a few papers which had to be repudiated due to fudged data vs the weight of expert consensus.

    I can dismiss sources discussing the scientific community which neither have objectivity nor actual knowledge of how they operate.

    More importantly people who use block citations without online attribution are in all circumstances relying on nonsense sources they do not others to see for themselves. Always a wingnut source. These webmasters here do not frown on posting URLs. You are full of it.

  • “NOT all “SCIENTISTS … agree” on climate change!”

    Just the overwhelming consensus of them based on accumulated evidence and research gathered in the field. It’s telling that you require a certain specific religious and political view in order to accept a certain scientific view. Bias informing your view as opposed to the weight of evidence.

  • Way off topic? You just got pwned for using sources of Ill repute and lying about what happened to them.

    Where has James Corbett been published?

  • “Way off-topic now”….ROTFL… More like I am keeping you exactly on your original topic, you don’t like it and now you are desperately trying anything you can think of to change the subject.

    HpO said: Scientist who dissent from the (global warming) alarmism…. their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges”

    Their works were derided exactly because they were proven to be
    industry stooges producing shoddy science on demand for their employers again and again and again. I back that up with verified
    investigative news reports many based on court discovered legal company documents.

  • “Fellow believers like me have our own SCIENTISTS to listen to”

    Yep, and 9 out 10 of those are on the fossil fuel payroll.
    “Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding”
    http://www.greanvillepost.com/
    and
    “Nine Out of Ten Top Climate Deniers Linked to ExxonMobil”
    http://www.zmescience.com/ecol
    STOP ATTACKING committed CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS and STOP CALLING THEM LIERS BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOUR IDEOLOGY.

  • Umm, you are suggesting that Jesus asked us to choose between God and the scientific method? Really now?

    Then why did Jesus, the Creator of the Universe (Colossians 1:16), create a universe that humans can accurately explore and interpret using the scientific method?

    Science and Christianity are compatible. 1 Thess. 5:21 (“Test all things”) fits right in with the scientific method.

    Naturalistic evolution and Christianity, however, are not compatible. You’ve got two opposing, irreconcilable religions there. As you say, “Choose you this day.”

  • It’s unfortunate how politicized the subject has become. To the extent truths exist at all, scientific truths are among the most rigorously examined and aren’t simply a matter of faith, conjecture, or opinion. But leaving aside even the science, one wonders at the Christian evangelical rejection of it. In one sense, yes, it’s quite understandable owing to the evangelical constituency primarily being interested in politics vice religion. In another sense, however, there is, of course the scriptures on stewardship, which – regardless of climate change – might in another time & place, provoke conservationist/environmentalist thinking. Guess not.

  • Please Floyd, this John Bates story is a crock. even Bates himself had to come out and say his complaint against NOAA has been twisted. Stop getting your science from Breitbart.
    Read These:
    John Bates’ retraction
    “Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did – to attack climate science” ” Fake news propagates through the conservative media”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science
    and this on John Bates(lots of good science here)
    “Researchers Lambast Daily Mail’s Climate Change Article”
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/02/07/daily-mail-climate-change-story/
    and
    “New study confirms NOAA finding of faster global warming”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/04/new-study-confirms-noaa-finding-of-faster-global-warming

  • John Bates’ retraction
    “Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did – to attack climate science” ” Fake news propagates through the conservative media”
    https://www.theguardian.com/en

    To which Julie Kelly of the National Review responded, “And in a completely misleading article, a climate blogger for The Guardian claimed that Bates feared that climate ‘deniers’ would misuse his information (although Bates did not say that). The Guardian blogger also lamented that ‘consumers of biased right-wing news outlets that employ faux science journalists were grossly misinformed by alternative facts and fake news.’

    “Don’t expect this to stop anytime soon. Climate alarmists and profiteers will only intensify their smear campaign as this unravels. Congress is now expanding its investigation of NOAA, Bates has indicated that more information and documents are forthcoming, and NOAA is now saying it will bring in outside experts to analyze the Karl report.” — Julie Kelly, “A Climate Scientist is Smeared for Blowing the Whistle on ‘Corrected’ Data, Feb 15. More information — much more — is at:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444942/john-bates-whistleblower-climate-scientist-smeared-global-warming-advocates

  • Gently….

    floydlee – Jesus isn’t real. Nor is God.

    We explore what is – not what some incompetent divinity threw together in a few hours and then abandoned when he realised how badly he’d screwed up.

    And, for the umpteenth time – religion involves irrational belief in a deity (however loosely interpreted) – evolution is not a religion.

  • One thing IS clear as we make our way through all these dueling links:

    Bates wrote a laundry list of clearly damaging claims involving the “Karl report” that so influenced the Paris climate change conference . He didn’t just write one little paperwork squib, but a clear and sharp laundry list, quite capable of putting NOAA under a government microscope for the alleged deeds claimed.

    The fact is that there’s NO way (not rationally, anyway!) that Bates’ own laundry list of NOAA mess can be reduced to a single sanitized gig like “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

    NOAA is now facing *congressional* investigation (and even NOAA itself is now calling for *outside experts* to investigate the Karl report). This tells you that the Global Warmers (be they scientists or shills), are unable to put the NOAA genie back in the bottle. In fact, even Bates himself cannot do so.

  • “in a completely misleading article, a climate blogger for The Guardian claimed that Bates feared that climate ‘deniers’ would misuse his information (although Bates did not say that). ”
    Those of you who want to know the truth will actually read the articles.

    Right….from the article Bates said this to 2 different news outlets:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/09/whistleblower-i-knew-people-would-misuse-this-they-did-to-attack-climate-science
    I quote:
    “Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News:
    “The ISSUE HERE IS NOT AN ISSUE OF TAMPERING WITH DATA, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”
    see E&E
    “‘Whistleblower’ says protocol was breached but no data fraud”
    http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630
    and
    “Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:”
    “I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.”
    see
    Science Insider article
    “How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study”
    http://www.sciencemag.org/category/environment

  • I saw those statements already. They do clash with what Kelly said.

    But that’s not the only clash around here. Bates’ one-liner sanitized sound-bites there, ALSO clashes with what Bates himself wrote in his 4100-word expose-article that ignited the NOAA controversy in the first place.

    There’s honestly no rational way that Bates’ own laundry list of the NOAA mess can now be reduced to one little paperwork-timing squib. Ya gotta be kidding, hmm?

  • “Bates’ one-liner sanitized sound-bites there, ALSO clashes with what Bates himself wrote ”

    Please stop inventing conspiracies and look rather for the mundane and obvious.
    I’ve read the Bates article and so have his fellows.
    Bates got CAUGHT PLACING BOTH FEET INTO HIS MOUTH and was soundly criticized for his mistaken assertions. Now he wants to keep his objections on improper archival procedures going while sheepishly retracting any hint of data might have been falsified. HE KNOWS HE MESSED UP, he is embarrassed and trying to save face. No doubt he realizes he has been used to promote an ideological agenda.

    Quote from the article;
    “Researchers Lambast Daily Mail’s Climate Change Article”
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/02/07/daily-mail-climate-change-story/

    “Bates’ issues with the research come down to a critique of how Karl et. al and others handled and stored data, not the ultimate veracity of the data itself. During his time at NOAA, Bates worked chiefly with satellite data UNRELATED TO THE DATABASES USED BY Karl AND HIS TEAM, AN AREA OF RESEARCH THAT USES DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS FOR DETERMINING WHEN TO PUBLISH DATA .
    He may not have personally agreed with their decision to publish the data; however, those results have been peer-reviewed and supported by teams of independent researchers. In addition, their methodology for calculating and temperatures has become standard for NOAA researchers”

  • “Bates wrote a laundry list of clearly damaging claims”
    Right…claims are not proof. Please quote in writing here all the verified proven claims made by Bates. All of his claims have been shot to pieces
    and THE RESEARCH YOU SAY WAS FALSIFIED/ALTERED HAS BEEN VERIFIED AS CORRECT BY OTHER INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
    SPEAKING OF CLAIMS IF ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO PROVE A CLAIM YOU ARE A PAID SHILL IS WRITE IT HERE, THEN CASE CLOSED, YOU ARE GUILTY PER YOUR LOGIC.

  • Even the Pentagon’s scientists take global warming seriously. That is a group which takes its research and methodology very seriously. As opposed to people on the payroll of fossil fuel companies. Their goal is to gauge how global warming is affecting the way our military operates now and continues to operate in the future.

    Your claim of some kind of ideological or political motive for suppressing climate denial is several different kinds of bullshit.

    https://warisboring.com/the-pentagon-is-still-worried-about-climate-change-bda6162458d4#.c1btvvcqc

  • You’re correct that “Claims are not proof.” Claims have to be investigated, and the fact IS that NOAA is about to face a renewed Congressional investigation (turns out that they began an investigation before Bates blew the whistle, but Bates’ claims have now put that investigation on a front burner (Daily Caller, Feb. 6). Ask why they’re investigating NOAA, Mike.

    According to the DC story, Bates was not the only scientist with concerns about NOAA’s mess.

    “…The Karl study made changes to historical sea surface temperature records, effectively doubling the warming trend of that period to 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade from 0.039 degrees per decade. Some scientists were skeptical of the data, and lawmakers were briefed on the study in summer 2015.”

    “…The committee aide said they had heard from other NOAA whistleblowers as well, but would not bring that evidence forward until given permission by sources.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/house-committee-to-push-ahead-with-investigation-into-alleged-climate-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

    I understand that you believe it’s all good now, all “verified as correct ” by “other independent research.” But that raises questions. First, if it’s all verified, why did Bates do a FOLLOW-UP blog that directly takes on the critics on key points?

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

    And why is NOAA now insisting on “outside independent experts” to investigate the Karl Report, since you say “other independent research” has verified everything?

  • Even though I have a feeling you’re clumsy at Google Search, I suggest you try these, Spuddie:

    Clare Swinney, “The Corbett Report Introduces New Website for Run up to Copenhagen”, infonews(dot)co(dot)nz, 7 December 2009

    James Corbett, “Geo-Engineering: The Real Climate Change Threat”, Waking Times, February 6, 2015

    James Corbett, “Climate-Gate Is Still the Issue”, Veterans Today, 2015/03/18

    Chere Di Boscio, “10 Honest News Sites Way Better Than Anything in the Mainstream Media”, including “The Corbett Report”, Eluxe Magazine, 2016

  • Did you do what I ask you yet, Mike Vienneau, about vetting James Corbett and Centre for Research on Globalization on their positions on climate change? Try these for starters, since you obviously haven’t: (1) Clare Swinney, “The Corbett Report Introduces New Website for Run up to Copenhagen”, infonews(dot)co(dot)nz, 7 December 2009. (2) James Corbett, “Geo-Engineering: The Real Climate Change Threat”, Waking Times, February 6, 2015. (3) James Corbett, “Climate-Gate Is Still the Issue”, Veterans Today, 2015/03/18. (4) Chere Di Boscio, “10 Honest News Sites Way Better Than Anything in the Mainstream Media”, including “The Corbett Report”, Eluxe Magazine, 2016.

    Both sides of this contentious issue of climate change apparently are “industry stooges” – which proves what? Both wrong on this issue?

  • Can you name one — just one — scientist who is currently on “the payroll of the fossil fuel companies” who does NOT take his or her scientific research and methodology “very seriously”?

  • Nice spin Floyd.
    So a congressional investigation is needed to look into claims that have been to shot pieces, are completely unproven, that even the author of the claims says were not an accusation of falsification of data in a report who’s data and conclusions have been independently verified and proven by other research. Those clamoring for and leading the investigation will be congressmen who’s main campaign contributors are oil companies and who believe a snow ball disproves global warming.
    Yessir, they gonna shut down that global conspiracy of 10’s of thousands
    of scientists around the world doing research that proves that climate change is real and man made. How dare they be so worried by their research that they are willing to face congressional hearing for trying to warn the world of the danger. HOW DARE THEY!

    You’re right, something doesn’t pass the smell test here but it’s the congressional investigation not what they are investigating.

  • So you have nothing in a peer reviewed journal accepted in the scientific field. Only a couple of oddball publications deep within the wingnutsphere.

    Again no links for what is a clear cut and paste job.

    So in addition to the Pentagon doing their own climate change research
    https://warisboring.com/the-pentagon-is-still-worried-about-climate-change-bda6162458d4

    …we have NASA
    https://climate.nasa.gov/

    They even have a snazzy site for walking your through the basis of the scientific consensus for laypeople.

    By all means give me excuses why two government agencies with very mundane and direct need for credible information on the subject would somehow be biased. I need a laugh.

  • “Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups

    Mike Vienneau already gave that info when he posted:

    “Yep, and 9 out 10 of those are on the fossil fuel payroll.
    “Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding”
    http://www.greanvillepost.com/
    and
    “Nine Out of Ten Top Climate Deniers Linked to ExxonMobil”
    http://www.zmescience.com/ecol…”

    and when he posted

    Here’s a story on Willie Soon you will not like. Hey..ever wonder why if all these people are being libeled they are not suing anyone?
    “Denial For Hire: Willie Soon’s Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money”

    Just check throughout the thread. He has been excellent in providing reliable sources of his points. [Please note the links in the quotes by Mr. Vienneau probably don’t work here. Look for the original posts]

  • Give me a break. You get caught and are proven to be repeating falsehoods and you think changing the subject gets you off the hook.
    People don’t be let yourselves be duped, If I want to learn about science go to reliable scientific sources not the trash disinformation blogs and sites others are promoting.
    The world famous US National Academy of Science and the UK’s Royal Society
    have studied all the evidence on climate change. Their websites have everything you need to know about the reality of climate change. Go there. Learn. Stop being conned.

    “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes”
    https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

    While we are at it. The World Meteorological Organization, the European Space Agency, the UK’s Met Office and the Japanese Space Agency all agree with
    the NAS/ Royal Society. Go to their web sites and see.

    Meanwhile others think they have disproven climate change if they can show it’s only a 94% consensus and not 97%.

  • Although the “weight of evidence” is biased as well. The bias I am referring to, though, is not intentional. The evidence is based on data that we have gathered only in the last 130 years or so–only the period of time in which we have been able to collect such data. This represents such an infinitesimal piece of the geological puzzle that it is unlikely we can draw accurate conclusions about what is “normal” and what would otherwise happen if we were not consuming fossil fuels. This lack of a control effectively frames the evidence a certain way that may or may not be accurate. It’s like trying to identify a symphony based on hearing one note played by one instrument–it’s not impossible, but you would have to be very lucky, and you might even get 97% of the listeners to agree based on the assumption that the note actually does appear in the score. Except in that case, it is more likely that the remaining 3% are correct by admitting that it is not possible to accurately guess.

  • That is a lot of rationalizations to go through on a given subject. A way to pretend consensus based on the accumulated study can be casually disregarded.

    But the recent nature of the study of the subject does not invalidate findings. Fact is, with the resources on hand, research points overwhelmingly to global warming existing.

    It also doesn’t help that there is a clear economic bias against recognition of findings in environmental sciences. The fact that both the Pentagon and NASA both recognize global warming cuts through most of the accusations that it is entirely politically motivated bunk.

  • Agreed on your latter points. The point wasn’t to invalidate findings, but rather to put them into perspective about what our expectations regarding climatic trends should be. If you look at ice core CO2 data, the inferred global temperature varies more widely than we have seen in the very small time slice in which we have been monitoring; moreover, periods of measurement “noise”–periods over which the trends repeatedly reverse themselves–can last far in excess of 130 years (sometimes thousands of years). In other words, we could be in the midst of that “noise” with no way of proving or disproving it simply because we don’t have direct data outside that period of time. If this were the case, it is possible that the trend could reverse at any time; we cannot predict whether or not this will happen given our limited data set.

    None of this was intended to provide a justification for not reducing dangerous emissions; I am wholly in favor of alternate and highly efficient forms of energy conversion (heck, I own two Prius, one for me, one for the kids, for what that’s worth). My opinion is only that, for the reasons previously stated, we should challenge the claims regarding human causation of the climatic trend we are currently experiencing.

  • ” In other words, we could be in the midst of that “noise” with no way of
    proving or disproving it simply because we don’t have direct data
    outside that period of time. If this were the case, it is possible that
    the trend could reverse at any time; we cannot predict whether or not
    this will happen given our limited data set.”

    It flies in the face of how scientific consensus is formed in the first place. If it were so clearly indecisive and questionable, based on “the lack of direct data”, it would be a major methodological failure for research on the subject. You would not be able to form the overwhelming opinion and weight of the community in the field under such conditions. Peer review would have weeded out such hasty conclusions. The purpose of the peer review process is to ensure credibility of research by subjecting it to such methodological audit and examination. Especially by those whose work disagrees with those of the researcher.

    “My opinion is only that, for the reasons previously stated, we should
    challenge the claims regarding human causation of the climatic trend we
    are currently experiencing.”

    Which is not based on a good faith objection to the research out there. You are positing a problem which doesn’t seem to exist here.

  • As I understand it cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that occurs when the walls of the compartments fail.

  • But Christ said we will be judged on how we treated the Least of These. The world’s poor are the most affected by climate change, and will suffer the greatest brunt of its effects. They already are. The spiritual condition of the Christian flock will determine whether the flock does everything it can to inspire meaningful action around the world to address, slow, and mitigate climate change caused by human activity. The data is in, now it’s time for prayer and action. Nobody affected our global climate “on purpose”, but now that we know better the physics of atmospheric warming, thanks to God’s gift of science, we need to take responsible action. That’s discipleship. That’s love for God and others.

  • Science involves the ability to test a hypothesis in a way that could show that the hypothesis is false. Man Made global warming theory doesn’t involve that type of testability. Any change in temperature either up or down can be explained away – even if the models don’t predict such change. And since climate always changes, it’s virtually impossible to know what portion of that change is a result of man’s influence. In a way, that makes man made global warming adherents kind of a religion. They just take their beliefs as a matter of faith – and damn those who doubt as infidels – or ‘deniers’.

  • I have no difficulty with emerging technologies that may mitigate whatever changes are presently occurring with regard to climate, but technology is a double edged sword, even as it “advances’ it is usually subject to the law of unintended consequences. Behavior is another matter, and probably the one that will be most difficult to ameliorate.

  • You are confusing a “scientific theory” with “rational thought”.

    The facts allow no interpretation but that the seas are warming, ice is melting at unusual rates and that many major cities around the world are threatened with inundation. At the same time weather trends are causing variations in soil fertility and crop sustainability. The facts also indicate that some of the conditions which accelerate this trend are partially due to human behaviour. I accept that it is difficult to apportion exact percentages to that which may be man-made and that which is not.

    So what?

    You accept that some is due to “man’s influence”. “How much?” is not a valid question.The question that should be asked is “What can humanity do to reduce it’s adverse impact on the only life-support system we have?

    And no, belief based on evidence (even evidence which shows a specific trend but does not, currently, permit exact forecasting) is not the same as religious faith. Religious faith is based on imagination, the desire for reward and fear.

    I doubt the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden because there is not good reason to think they exist. That makes me a sceptic.
    If there was evidence to support their existence and I refused to accept that evidence I would be a “denier”.

    I could argue that it is impossible to know exactly how much faster my horse would run if I whipped it more or less. My ignorance would not prevent excessive whipping harming the horse and slowing it down/stopping it altogether would it?

    And believing that excessive use of the whip could harm my horse does not equate to a “religion” does it?

  • No, I’m using the Karl Popper’s teachings regarding scientific theory that I learned in graduate school. Correlation does not equal causation. So, the morning paper showing up at my door step each morning does not explain why the sun rises afterwards.

    And it makes a big difference how much of the ever-changing climate is due to man – since we’re being asked to fundamentally alter our global economy at tremendous expense into a much less energy efficient state based solely upon the ‘non-falsifiable’ theory of man made global warming. Read Bjorn Lomborg.

    By the way, we’ve been in the Pleistocene glaciation period for the last 2 1/2 million years. I’m from Upstate New York. That last period of glaciation left us with the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes. Maybe man’s influence may actually ameliorate the next active period of global glaciation. But we shouldn’t abandon fossil fuels and relegate huge swaths of the globe’s people to a less prosperous lifestyle on an un-falsifiable scientific ‘belief’.

  • “Correlation does not equal causation” of course not, but it also doesn’t mean that rational interpretation of the evidence must be ditched in favour of my short-term benefit and a willingness to play god with future generations’ lives.

    Humanity’s actions are part of the problem, whatever their extent they are the only part we can influence. Morally there is a requirement that we take those steps we realistically can to limit the consequences.

    “we shouldn’t abandon fossil fuels and relegate huge swaths of the globe’s people to a less prosperous lifestyle on an un-falsifiable scientific ‘belief’.” If it isn’t falsifiable it isn’t scientific. Ignore science – just use logic to evaluate the evidence and then rationally decide on what the correct response is to that analysis. – Don’t confuse the issue with “a scientific theory”, the job of the scientific method is to produce and inform relevant and valid evidence without the complications caused by confirmation bias, reward, obstinacy etc. etc.. The job of reason is to understand what the evidence tells us.

  • In all honesty, isn’t it presumptuous at best to claim climate change is scientific. It does not even meet the basic requirements. Any observations can not be replicated. The variables involved are not constant. The accumulated data has been aquired utilizing differing measuring devices by different persons and techniques. The envoronment virtually by definition is not controllable and thereby subject to experimentation. So, what then …computer simulation? based on what past and current variables? I will avoid garbage in garbage out. But can anyone actually claim that the input data was not subject to conclusions that were premature. Even the historical data used indicates that the climate has always occured. Why? The reason can not be man.

    Concidering these realities, how can one avoid the observation that there are important factors that lead me to questions scientists ability to use objectivity in the matter of climate change. Funding, peer pressure, and other factors concern me. This is why I question the propensity of scientist to substitute consensus for hard experimentation. The fact that inquiries have found that at least some of the data is questionable should be of concern.

    Of course, being a simple Christian may have colored my objectivity. I will admit that if you scientist will admit that at least some of your conclusions are based on faith. It is ok. We Christians understand that kind of thing. Just remember, when considering the number of jobs lost and lives destroyed of good hard working people due to this conjecture, my Christian and your humane duty is to at least be certain that ones claim is based in truth not mere speculation.

  • What if a global concensus ‘rationally’ concludes that man’s contribution to whatever ‘baseline’ on warming that could be established was only %5, and the solution to remove that 5% and return to baseline involved spending trillions upon quadrillions of dollars – meaning mankind suffers a tremendous loss in standard of living and probably life expectancy as well? Is your solution ‘rational’ then?

  • What ifs are of academic interest only.

    The evidence says we have a real and worsening problem which will undoubtedly lead to loss of many lives and lives (for the vast majority) that are shorter and desperately diminished in quality.

    I suggest (as someone who is unlikely to be around in ten years time) that the moral imperative is to do what we can to minimise the harm which is inevitable whilst seeking further understanding of the degree to which our actions exacerbate the issue.

    When and if, and only when-and-if, we can state with near unanimity and certainty that our best efforts will achieve so little as to be ineffectual your what-if becomes relevant; we are nowhere near there currently and the danger is that we reach that situation because we failed to act strongly and early enough whilst we had the chance to make a real difference.

  • So, under your ‘morale imperative’ rubric, if your car starts making funny noises, then your plan would be to start replacing parts until the noise goes away – no matter what the cost? Then, if you get the time and the noise still persists, take the car to the shop to get the trouble diagnosed? First, you’re the rational thinker, then you plead moral imperative. Your speaking from a position of faith, not rationality. I’d argue that your faith is somewhat misplaced:
    http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/

  • No

    When my car starts making funny noises I immediately take it the garage for investigation. That gives me three benefits.

    The first is that I get someone who knows more than me to assess the problem and advise on the appropriate response to the noise.

    The second is that I’m unlikely to spend money unwisely due to ignorance

    The third is that my car is off the road – therefore unable to harm anyone.

    We don’t have the option for removing the noisy climate from the road – unlike my car it is going to continue to put people at risk .

    Due to three your analogy is invalid.

  • Science is not about certainty, we leave that to others.

    Science is about gathering and analysing the best available evidence in order to reach the result with the highest probability of accuracy currently achievable: and doing so without pre-limiting the range of results because of personal convictions.

    Some of the relevant observations can be, and are, replicated. Some are statistically validated by repetition and multiple-sampling. The process by which data is analysed is open to criticism and replication. The programs which are used to extrapolate data are tested.

    Scientists are more likely to achieve personal goals (fame/awards/tenure etc.) by overthrowing the established expectations than by echoing them.

    You should question the factors you mention, but I wonder if you have the knowledge to be able to weight your concerns appropriately.

    Finally – it is not your Christian duty to to be certain of your claims. Being a Christian means following the teachings and example of the Christ as written in the only books we have that claim verbatim quotes. That includes giving no thought for the morrow (as well as selling all you have and giving it to the poor). If you choose to supplant your following of the alleged teachings of the Christ with a humanist conviction I applaud you. But even humanists don’t think that the yardstick is certainty.

  • It is hard to respect anothers faith that you find contradictory to yours. ???? Science is your faith. It’s OK …just admit it. Remember God is not calling you to a religion. He is calling you to Him. I doubt that you “know” baptist. What do you get when you put three baptist in a room. Six different opinions. I know …but the point is that if you take the time to ‘know’ baptist you may find a curious and discerning mind. Try it. Could be fun. We just try and follow that 10 commandment thing. If you can be open minded and respect diversity of thoght you might enjoy yourself. We Christian tend to be more fun than your typical agnostics, atheist, humanists, and arrogant scientific dudes. Why? We read the ending.

  • Then how do you explain Newton and Eistein contending that science confirms their faith. Indeed, isn’t science simply a tool used to understand the truth. Every “discovery” of science only confirms God and deepens our understanding. Science can only observe the observable. The other questions beyond it are addressed through reason but even that ultimate conclusion requires faith. So our ultimate answer can only be aswered through faith. Examples, how did all begin? Why was all created anyway? Science can not address or answer these questions. Sooner or later we must conclude that no amount of education can answer these questions. It is a matter of faith.

  • Again thank you for your reply. In regards to it. I ask only that the data is accurate and that the limitations presented by the inability to replicate the results, establish cause and effect, and identify/control other possibly more important variables.

    Also, acknowledge that the dataobtain through research only supports the contention that there are more causal factors than man made carbon emmissions. Since these variations in weather have occured throughout history, man made carbon emissions can not possibly be the cause of past global changes. this is only reasonable.

    Add to this that the data is not honest, see IPCC study. This corruption of data was not isolated. So, how can I or the public trust it.

    Lets assume that you can establish that “man made” emissions is the primary cause of climate change, ignore the fact that temperature change, increase is in question. Ignore the fact that carbon “emissions” is a fact of nature.

    What do you do? Force China and India to stop their polluting ways…. Let me know how that works out. The US has consistantly reduced its emissions for the simple joy of having a clean environment, even Christians.

    No… solutions are not so easy but fear not. You live in a democratic republic. You have the obtions of making your case.Suggestion, it might help your adocacy if you not refer to others as stupid or backwards. they tend to dismiss you as well. Make your case with honest facts.

    Finally, regarding your reference, ” selling all you have and give to the poor”. this is found in the story of the rich man, Matthew 19:16-30. You will also run across the statement rregarding it being easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle.
    this story is Teaching the the ‘Love ” of wealth can not be greater than the love of Christ.

  • You seem to be operating in an on/off mode. It doesn’t matter if the human contribution to is more or less than the natural background causes. What matters is minimising the additional effects humanity is creating.

    FWIW I do not live in a democratic republic. The UK is (presently) a part of greater group whose leadership in reducing the poisons we emit has allowed other countries to moderate their self-protective positions. Current events throughout the world may negate that benefit and lead to a spiral of competitive machismo which will lead to harm for all.

    I don’t recall referring to others as stupid or backward, though one or two regular posters seem determined to earn the sobriquet for their writing if not for themselves.

    As I understand it the gospels say that the Christ commanded that we love one another. I question whether playing Russian roulette with current and future generations’ health can be considered an appropriate response.

  • I am not sure what on/off mode means but so be it. You do still have the privilege to vote for your own representation. My understanding is that the UK decided to withdraw from the EU. Regardless of what you may have been told, Americans have decided to reduce pollutants because they love their children and wish for them a clean and wonderful place to live. Why isn’t that enough. The result will be the same in the end.

    It does, of course, matter if the primary cause of climate change is man-made. If it is not, then the solution of destroying jobs and lives for minimal and inconsequential reward is not warranted. As a Christian, I hope you recognize that it is my given charge to be a steward of His creation.

    Most Christians understand this. Being a steward requires a respect of the environment and “all” life, even human, within it. Therefore, a reasoned plan is required. This cannot be done with invalid data under the guise that the end justifies the means.

    I am not your enemy or antagonist. However, I will not accept a dismissal of my perspective under the justification that support “competitive machismo”, greedy capitalism, hypocritical Christianity, or any other nonrelevant term. For a moment let imagine that I bought you a beer and we are just talking. Can you for the moment accept the fact that a person who works in an industry that produces fossil fuels, a guy trying to feed his family, or a leader in a third world country wants what is best for his own and others.

    I think the verse you are referring to is Luke 10:27,” He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” The point is I want what is best for you as if it were myself. This truth is the regulator of my stewardship and behavior.

    I have included videos of a couple of intellectual giants that you are probably familiar with. The first two are from C.S. Lewis and the final one is of David Berlinski. I found Mr. Berlinski’s argument regarding the limitation of scientific methodology worth of consideration. Please check at your leisure. I would be interested in your perspective.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJu0oYvi-cY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc

  • My response was going to be pages long – so:-

    I accept that, as a Christian, you feel as you say you do. As a humanist who sees neither rational evidence nor need for god(s) – or a Creation – I feel obligated to do what I think best for humanity.

    I always worry when someone claims that “most” of any group agree with them, do you have reliable data to support your statement? My experience of Christians in UK and US is that there are so many varieties, with so many dissensions that being a Christian means little more than that an individual claims so to be. Any other basis rapidly becomes confrontational and usurps the decision one would have expected Christians would feel belonged to their deity.

    I don’t feel that we are enemies or antagonists, we both hold views which we believe are justified and lead us to differing conclusions. At least one of us is wrong. As I see it, anyone who believes in the supernatural is probably less rigorous in their expectation of valid evidence than those who don’t. No doubt there is a differing opinion.

    I am a parent, I understand what you are saying but that does not justify inaction. This is about balance. The US has just elected a leader who promised “to make America great again”. AFAIK he offered no cohesive plan to do so. Having some experience and a little knowledge I simply venture the well attested fact that psychopaths a) are pathological liars, b) don’t do plans and c) are often mainly motivated by the one emotion they can truly feel – anger. (FWIW I’m well aware that Brexit was sold with the same “broad-stroke” absence of detail to those who respond positively to an authoritarian leader).

    I’ve always thought that the golden rule displays one of the fundamental flaws of some life-styles. It assumes that treating you as I would like to be treated is right – because I’m right. It justifies mistreating those who are unlike me because they should be like me. I know that I am not always right and am certain that no-one else is.

    I think that the words “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” need the suffix “if you were them”. Better still I like the (Wiccan?) version – “Do whatever you will provided it harms no-one”. All made irrelevant by real-life sometimes of course, and reflecting differing priorities but they show thought.

    As to your intellectual giants – I know not of David Berlinski but I hope he is more deserving of your description than CSL*. I read “The Screwtape Letters” as a young teenager and nearly sixty years later (recently) “Mere Christianity”. IMO “Mere Christianity” is based on a single, highly irrational and totally unevidenced, belief which may well have been nothing more than a cynical attempt to engender wartime solidarity amongst poorly educated, easily influenced citizens who were being bombed almost nightly.
    *Just googled David Berlinski – Discovery Institute – not got enough life left to spend listening to more evolution-deniers.

  • Thank you for your reply. First, let me say that my faith is not based on a feeling. Feelings are subject to change. My faith is based on the acceptance of certain truths. These truths are not subject to change or revelation, whether from scripture or quantum physics. I am also aware enough that I trust Him with humanity and not my inclinations. I try to be content in doing His will.

    In regards to the varied opinions of Christians regarding various matters, this is to be expected. However, I have not found one who disagrees with the first book of the bible in which God gave man work. This work was a stewardship over his creation.

    This brings me to an interesting point as indicated in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 in which Paul states that while all things may be permissible, it is not necessarily beneficial or edifying. That the well-being of others should supersede our own.
    In your comparison of the quote “Do to others what you would have them do to you” to “Do whatever you will provided it harms no one”, you assume they are the same. They are not. In the first quote I am commanded to keep my brother in mind in everything I do. What is implied is that the welfare of my brother comes before mine. This is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 24 which states that the well-being of others comes before my own. The Wiccan statement does not do this. It is a justification of any behavior to satisfy self. It rationalizes this behavior with the caveat, provided it harms no one.

    I will skip your analysis of American politics. I will state that America has checks and balances. This is a constitutional reality. I will evaluate the President by what he does.

    I really wish you would be open to listening to Dr. Berlinski in the video link I sent. I am certain that you will find his analysis interesting and well thought out. Both Dr. Berlinski and Lewis were confirmed atheist. Lewis details his journey to Christianity. Berlinski is more ambiguous. Regardless, the links regarding Lewis is his analysis of science and its future relationship with faith and Berlinski’s analysis of scientific analysis, reason, and rational thought as it relates to non material anaylsis is worth it. The links below are in regards to these works. Please be open to view when you can. Let me know what you think of them. I will provide them below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJu0oYvi-cY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc

  • Whether or not you accept it your faith is based on your belief in what you feel to be true.

    If you cannot demonstrate that your truth is an accurate description of reality it is mere preference. That does not make it wrong, it merely makes it extremely likely that it is.

    I’m unsure as to whether you mean that you know no Christians who disagree with the particular concept within Genesis or that they all accept Genesis completely. Most Christians in Western Europe, and many in the USA, do not accept the first book of the Bible in it’s entirety, they may pick-and-mix some elements but they definitely disagree with much of that book.

    I do not consider the two “bon-motes” to be the same. I consider the Wiccan to be superior since it specifically forbids the arrogance of believing that what is good for me is automatically good for everyone else. The Wiccan limits my narcissism, the Christian hallows it.

    I don’t regard Paul as an inspiration, nor his alleged writings as being worthy of subservience. He was, IMO, a grifter who found an idea that he could manipulate for his benefit and turned something which could have been good for humanity (a movement based on the ideas in the sermon on the mount) into a tawdry, self-serving and power-loving religion.

    As to Berlinski – within 2(?) minutes he was claiming that scientists say that they can prove that there is no God. I would be surprised if he doesn’t know that that is an untrue statement as regards the vast majority of scientists, and therefore assume that he knows that whatever argument he is going to propose is valueless unless his straw man is taken seriously. Demonstrating the non-existence of god(s) is not possible (though rationally denying the possibility of the Christian God is not difficult). Painting my hall ceiling is an easy choice rather than listen to 40 minutes of Berlinski!

  • Maybe they could first explain why it was Global Cooling in the 1970s, then became Global Warming in the 1990s, and now it has become Climate Change. What’s the “science” behind these dramatic changes in how the world will end, and civilization will be thrown back to the Stone Age? And please, don’t rewrite history. Don’t claim that Global Cooling was not the apocalypse du jour. I remember it, and I remember being scared to death. But, oh well, on to the next flawless prediction, right?
    Then they could explain why all the apocalyptic predictions of the 2000’s, set to happen in the 20-teens, did not happen (you know – the Artic ice will be gone, cities on the eastern seaboard will be flooded, frequency of hurricanes will increase dramatically, etc.). Why didn’t they happen? Why?
    Next they could explain whatever became of the other doomsday predictions that were so triumphantly put forth by “experts” in the 1960s-1990s:
    – overpopulation
    – Americans starving by the millions when “resources” disappear
    – nuclear winter
    – Alar (my favorite)
    – the Ozone Hole (remember that?)
    – acid rain.
    And finally, and most significantly, they could explain the science, the psychology, that drives a certain type of person to perpetually believe that we’re all doomed, that world wide destruction is just around the corner. And, how such a person seamlessly moves from one outlandish fantasy to the next, like a textbook psychotic, when their oh-so-cherished believe is proved utterly wrong. Now that would be an interesting lecture.
    Do all of these things first, then we’ll talk.

  • Suggestion… tell the truth. Don’t use doctored data sets. Don’t use summaries in the IPCC reports that can’t be supported by the detailed chapters behind them. Be honest about what “the hottest on record” means… the hottest since the satellite era began in 1979 (note that the ‘hottests’ are in hundredths of degrees that are not possible for the instrumentation that made up 90+ % of the historical climate network data in the us, let alone dendrochronologies (tree ring studies), let alone ice cores or foraminifera population temperature proxy studies.

    There is no hypothesis that has not been long since falsified to support the hypothesis of catastrophic warming or impacts on the highly stable and highly stabilized earth system, so what do you have to offer? The faithful tend to not be as stupid and naive as the secular atheists
    that are desperate for meaning and focus in their lives that have
    adopted ‘global warming aka climate change as their faith-based value
    system.

    Admit to yourself at least that the article is more of an evangelism than a rational, falsifiable hypothesis/test discussion. that would be the best thing you cold do for all of us.

  • I ponder how would be the best way to tell scientists that God is in charge and I place my faith in Him, not them. How does one talk to somebody who thinks that they are the smartest being that ever existed?

  • Respectfully, even if man is arrogant enough to belive he can “control” the earth’s climate, the only real hope for mankind is God’s Kingdom. (Matt. 6:9,10) To belive otherwise is foolhardy. Rev. 11:18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

    That should be the proper Christian perspective.

  • Reality as you perceive it. 1 Cor. 1:27 but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 so that no one might boast in the sight of God.

  • Prov. 24:7 “True wisdom is unattainable for a fool; He has nothing to say in the city gate. 8 Anyone who plots evil Will be called a master schemer. 9 Foolish schemes are sinful, And people detest a ridiculer.”

  • Floylee, the previous verse call Jesup the firstborn of creation or creatures. This goes hand in hand with John 3:16 and 1 Cor. 19:24.

  • Who said that there was ice age coming in the 70’s? A handful of people at best.
    The vast majority of climatologist did not agree as research was already showing that CO2 was already causing warming that compensated for any cooling factors.

    Instead of believing every twisted story you read on the denier websites, you might want to read something truthful for a change. If you really want to know the facts take a look at these stories.

    ” The 1070’s ice age myth and the Time magazine covers”
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

    “That ’70s myth—did climate science really call for a “coming ice age?”
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

    “THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
    from the bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

  • I actually lived during that time period. Something about putting soot on the ice caps to melt them. Just saying. ..

  • I actually lived through that time period as well.
    The people who are writing about scientists wanting to put soot on the ice caps in the 70’s are the same ones who were spreading photo-shopped covers of Time magazine on the net to prove their point. Kinda puts what they have to say in different perspective. Just saying….

    But you would know that (and a lot more) if you had read what was in the links.
    Just saying…

    But, since you are way too busy to check the links, here’s a few quotes:
    ” One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. “Collectively,” the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey “tended to anticipate a slight global WARMING RATHER THAN COOLING” (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978). ”

    “..survey (of scientific studies from the late 70’s) identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming…. Given that even a cursory examination reveals that global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, ”

    the more you know Anthony, the more you know….

  • Maybe the oh-so-smug scientists could first explain what happened to all of the other dire events that were going to kill us all. How about:
    – overpopulation
    – mass starvation in the US
    – global cooling (before it morphed into global warming, and then into climate change)
    – nuclear winter
    – shrinking ozone hole
    – global warming .
    Remember the “Starvation ’75” buttons from the early 1970s? Hmm..never seemed to happen. Never seem to hear about that ozone depletion that was going to fry us all, do you? Oh well, onto the next cataclysm. And if we’re all doomed by so-called “climate change” why do academics keep playing fast and loose with the facts, by denying those with whom they disagree a chance to publish? I remember when “scientific experts” advocated covering the North Pole with soot, so to capture more of the sun’s heat and thus combat global cooling!

  • It is truly unfortunate, like you say. But politicization of science is inevitable when there is so much money involved. The root of all evil, don’t you know.

  • Here’s an idea.. use actual data… not adjusted stretched thin ‘re-analyzed’ estimates. The ‘conclusions’ about climate change are hubris and haughty self absorption writ large.

    What are the trends from the (unadjusted) rural stations in the USHCN?

    Why are the ‘hottest years on record (last 3 supposedly) by hundredths of degrees C that are far beyond the accuracy of the instrumentation, but well within the ability of models to calculate and statistical regimens to invent.

    The problem that climate change cultists have is that most Christians are Christians because they have had experience with faith. When the cultists demand that they exercise faith (no data offered, models that can’t hindcast without adjustment, predictions that have consistently failed to come true for 30 years) in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, they just know better.

    The ultimate test of Christian faith is the difference it makes in the life of the faithful and the lives of those around those that profess to follow Christ. The ultimate test of faith in the cooked data, rigged reviews and inquisitional approach to discourse of Michael Mann and Al Gore’s adherents is to attack those that disagree or seek to extend knowledge.

    Frankly, the ‘scientists’ that keep moving the catastrophic predictions and the ‘last chance to stop the fire’ stuff are more like Scientologists than scientists. They hide what’s really going on behind very aggressive PR campaigns, they have a well established doctrine that everyone has to adhere to and they are aggressive about getting rid of anyone that questions the program.

    When will the climate change crew address the gaps between Hansen’s 1988 predictions and the actual temperature record? When will they be realistic about the cryosphere’s failure to decline? When will they start investigating the Solar particle contributions to clouds (which are not part of their models mostly) and do actual new investigations instead of circling the wagons and adjusting data to fit their program?

    That would catch my attention in a positive way. The attempts to adjust Christians through social influence just makes me more certain that they have nothing else to go on and their work will not bear scrutiny. Wegener had to put up with this his whole life… but eventually the insiders got old and died and science could continue… the world just lost 60 years of valuable research while the club held power.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs